Consti

Case #10 (Aids to Construction)

GR No. L-8451
The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. vs. Land Registration Commission and
Register of Deeds of Davao City

FACTS:
- Mateo L. Rodis, Filipino, resident of Davao City, executed a deed of sale of a parcel of land
located in the same city, covered by TCT No. 2263, in favor of the Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator of Davao Inc. (“RCAADI”), a corporation sole organized and existing in
accordance with Philippine Laws, with Msgr. Clovis Thibault, a Canadian citizen, as actual
incumbent.
- Prior to registration of said parcel, RD of Davao required RCAADI to submit an affidavit
declaring that 60% of their members are Filipino citizens, however they were not able to
produce the same as what the Carmelite Nuns have submitted.
- After hearing, resolution was rendered holding that in view of the provisions of Sec. 1 and 5
of Art. 13 of the Constitution, RCAADI was not qualified to acquire private lands in the
Philippines in the absence of proof that at least 60% of the capital, property or assets, was
actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens. RD was ordered to deny registration of the
DOAS in the absence of proof of compliance with such condition.
o Sec. 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, water, minerals,
coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural
resources od the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation,
development, or utilization shall be limited to the citizens of the Philippines, or to
corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of the capital of which is owned by
such citizens. SUBJECT TO ANY EXISTING RIGHT, grant, lease, or concession AT THE TIME
OF THE INAUGURATION OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED UNDER CONSTITUTION.
Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated,
and no license, concession, or leases for the exploitation, development, or utilization of
any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for another twenty- five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which
cases other than the development and limit of the grant.
o Sec. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be
transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.
- Petitioner…
o filed a petition for mandamus, seeking the reversal of said resolution;
o argued that it is actually a DOAS in favor of the Catholic Church which is qualified to
acquire private agricultural lands for the establishment and maintenance of places of
worship;
o prayed that the judgment be rendered reserving and setting aside aside the resolution
of the LRC in question

ISSUE: WON the corporation sole1 RCAADI is qualified to acquire private agricultural lands in the
Philippines pursuant to the provisions of the Art. 13 of the Constitution

1
A corporation sole is organized and composed of a single individual, the head of any religious society or church, for the
administration of the temporalities (estate and properties not used exclusively for religious society) of such society or church.

HELD:
Yes. Although confusions arose with regards to Article 13, the ambiguity was properly and adequately
resolved by result to extraneous aids in order to discover the intent of the framers, like:
1. Consideration that the framers of the Constitution did not have in mind or overlooked this
particular form of corporation and history of the times when the provision was adopted and
the purposes aimed at in its adoption (as discussed in The Framing of the Philippine
Constitution by Professor Jose M. Aruego, a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention)
o “Filipinos hesitated, as a general rule, to invest a considerable sum of their capital for
the development, exploitation and utilization of the natural resources of the country.
They had not as yet been so used to corporate as the peoples of the west. This general
apathy, the delegates knew, would mean the retardation of the development of the
natural resources, unless foreign capital would be encouraged to come and help in
that development. They knew that the naturalization of the natural resources would
certainly not encourage the INVESTMENT OF FOREIGN CAPITAL into them. But there
was a general feeling in the Convention that it was better to have such a development
retarded or even postpone together until such time when the Filipinos would be ready
and willing to undertake it rather than permit the natural resources to be placed
under the ownership or control of foreigners in order that they might be immediately
be developed, with the Filipinos of the future serving not as owners but utmost as
tenants or workers under foreign masters. By all means, the delegates believed, the
natural resources should be conserved for Filipino posterity.”
§ Framers of the Constitution intended said provisions as barrier for foreigners
or corporations financed by such foreigners to acquire, exploit and develop
our natural resources, saving this undeveloped wealth for our people to clear
and enrich when they are already prepared and capable of doing so.

2. Consideration of the history of the times when the provision was adopted and the purposes
aimed at in its adoption (as discussed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Jose P. Laurel in
the case of Gold Creek Mining Corp. vs. Rodriquez)
o It will be noticed that Section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides, among
other things, that "all agricultural lands of the public domain and their disposition shall
be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations at least 60 per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such citizens, SUBJECT TO ANY EXISTING RIGHT AT
THE TIME OF THE INAUGURATION OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS
CONSTITUTION."
§ As recounted by Mr. Justice Jose P. Laurel, "this recognition (in the clause
already quoted), is not mere graciousness but springs from the just character
of the government established. The farmers of the Constitution were not
obscured by the rhetoric of democracy or swayed to hostility but by an
intense spirit of nationalism. They well knew that conservation of our natural
resources did not mean destruction or annihilation of ACQUIRED PROPERTY
RIGHTS".

RULING: Wherefore, the resolution of the respondent Land Registration Commission of September
21, 1954, holding that in view of the provisions of sections 1 and 5 of Article XIII of the Philippine
Constitution the vendee (petitioner) is not qualified to acquire lands in the Philippines in the absence
of proof that at least 60 per centum of the capital, properties or assets of the Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator of Davao, Inc. is actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens, and denying the
registration of the deed of sale in the absence of proof of compliance with such requisite, is hereby
reversed. Consequently, the respondent Register of Deeds of the City of Davao is ordered to register
the deed of sale executed by Mateo L. Rodis in favor of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator
of Davao, Inc., which is the subject of the present litigation. No pronouncement is made as to costs.
DISSENTING OPINION (REYES, J.B.L.)

(1) That the capacity of religious corporation sole to acquire agricultural land depends upon 60 per
cent Filipino membership of the group or body exercising control of the corporation;

(2) That if control of any such corporation should be vested in a single person, then such person must
be a Filipino citizen;

(3) That in the absence of evidence on these points, the order appealed from, denying registration of
the conveyance, should be affirmed.